Talk:Grass Mud Horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Removed as it is not a meme. If it is then will somebody please start declaring that online gaming is a meme and the act of eating at a table is a meme? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you have just said shows that you know little of the subject at hand. Consider reading a few external articles. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cao Ni Ma[edit]

What makes CNM so popular in the English-speaking realm but not even in the Chinese (popular enough to make someone even transliterate the title into GMH)? As far as there is no such article of a Chinese version, the lingual link to the Chinese Wikipedia is "Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures" in Chinese. Does it make any sense that such a highly offensive/vulgar term derived from some kind of Internet meme becomes a case to be observed, even though not more attention has been made in Chinese Wikipedia, which has the same lingual background to CNM. Ccyber5 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do the Chinese depict the grass mud horse as an alpaca?[edit]

Why do the Chinese depict a grass mud horse as an alpaca? True horses are actually odd-toed ungulates, while grass mud horses are camelids, which are even-toed ungulates. True horses and grass mud horses actually belong to totally different orders, families, genera, and species. Jplatts (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • My guess is that alpaca is not commonly seen in China, actually the whole East Asia maybe. So the visual effect would be better with such rare animal.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth remembering that "llama" in Chinese is 駱馬: "camel-horse". Chinese naming conventions probably are not made to reflect biological classifications.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
駱馬 is a phonetic transcription of "llama". Just like how 乌鲁木齐 Wūlǔmùqí is a phoentic transcription of "ئۈرۈمچی" Ürümchi (Ürümqi), and 阿道夫·希特勒 Adaofu Xitele is a transcription of "Adolf Hitler". The usage of 馬 is secondary at most, and shouldn't be assumed to be directly literal or scientific (as seen in Transcription into Chinese characters, many accompanying meanings from transcribed characters are added only secondary to the actual phonetic spelling, e.g. 可口可乐). Although Hitler was a husband (夫), was a special individual (特) and was sometimes forceful (勒), he was not a follower of the Tao (道), nor a person of hope to many (希). Chinese transcriptions don't work that way. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Different meanings of Ma Le Ge Bi[edit]

Ma Le Ge Bi, Ma Le Gobi, Mahler Gebi, and Mahler Gobi have several meanings, including the following:

The syllable bi has over 80 meanings associated with it. These meanings are actually dependent on more than simply the inflectional tone. Ma Le Ge Bi actually has meanings beyond the profane phrase for your mother's genital area or the habitat of grass mud horses, even though these are the two meanings often associated with the Grass Mud Horse Internet meme. Jplatts (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the Mahler Gobi is located[edit]

The Mahler Gobi is located in Inner Mongolia along the northern bank of the Huang He, near the city of Baotou. This description is appropriate because:

  • Grass mud horses are invaded by river crabs, which is an invasive species of crab that lives along the river.
  • There is grass growing in the southern part of the Gobi region
  • The fertile grass mud horse can eat only fertile grass. This region has green grass that can be eaten by the fertile grass mud horses.

Jplatts (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


What specific issues make it necessary to mark this article with a "cleanup needed" tag? The article covers the Caonima from a wide variety of perspectives, and is exhaustively sourced. I don't see how this article is lacking at all, and I don't see any reason why this article shouldn't be at least B-class.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Because nobody believes that there is a reason for that banner to be up, I am removing it from the article.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grass Mud Horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll reveiw this. It has a dead link though that needs to be fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was really quick! Can you give me a day or two before you do a formal review? I'm just going to do a very broad prose edit, and check/standardize the article's references first.Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • yes, whatever time you need. I notice that the reference format is a little screwed up. Shouldn't be to hard to fix. Let me know when you're ready.
  • also "It has become an Internet chat forum cult phenomenon in China through chat forums" - it has become a chat forum cult phenomenon through chat forums - redundant. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that the grass mud horse is part of popular culture, and that academia generally lags behind social developments in its assessments, but I would guess that by now there would be some academic sources discussing the roots and implications of the icon for contemporary China. Please give a check, as right now the sources are mostly from media. That would be my primary suggestion for making it a good article. —Zujine|talk 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I nominated this article for consideration to GA class because I believe that it is well-sourced, illustrated, well-organized, and because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. After reviewing the article more closely, I've found that it has issues with WP:RS and WP:OR, and I need to improve the article's sources. If you want, you can close this review and wait for me to re-submit the article (if I am able to address the article's issues); or, you can wait for a little while, while I attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to wait, if you like, say for a week or so. Or if you prefer, I can fail it and you can renominate when you're ready. (That might put less pressure on you.) But, whatever. You choose. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there was a conclusion here, but I can try to find some time to add more scholarly sources on the significance of the grass mud horse as it pertains to changing state-society relations, or whatever (there is a fair bit of literature to draw from). As an aside, I find the first couple sections to be delightfully earnest in their account of the genus and habitat of the grass mud horse. Homunculus (duihua) 07:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Little work has been done on the article since the nominator said he would "attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible." So I'll review it now. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    It starts out ok, but becomes confusing towards the end of the article.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lede doesn't cover some major points in the article. e.g. the involvement of Ai Weiwei.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    The references are not presented in a way that the reader can easily follow to verify. There is a dead link marked a couple of months ago. Also, some reverences do not verify material in the article. e.g. the link verifying an alpaca actually shows a zebra-like animal. References need to be to reliable sources.
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    Much of the material is not verified.
    C. No original research:
    e.g. introduction of long segment on Ai Weiwei plus image of him seems like OR.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
    the body of the article veers off into peripheral subjects not mentioned in lede. Article seems to ramble.
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    almost no edits made to article since nomination
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Fair use justification doesn't cover image of Ai Weiwei
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article needs a lot of work to become a GA. e.g. text needs to be focused, referencing needs to be cleaned up and unreferenced material needs referencing. Recommend a rewrite before submitting to GA again. Good luck. It's an interesting topic and deserves coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)